|
|
Post by pop up pirate on Jul 28, 2024 11:57:03 GMT
Well we agree on some of that then, good. I've said before that I'd have been equally appalled by an Officer delivering retribution to a white man, that should go without saying. The assault on the Officers is of course appalling too, from the 'evidence' I've watched the 2 or 3 men will be looking at custodial sentences. No complaints from me. The difference in the tone of condemnation regarding the ethnicity of the men though seems to be the contentious issue. Both 'sides' have used it for political leverage and it's not going to be helpful for any of us. It's violent assault, followed by an unprofessional act by a firearms officer (at least it's how it appears). The whole event is one of the most unfortunate things that could have happened in these polarised times I'm glad we meet on some, if not all, points. However, I would remind you that this happening at this time is not 'unfortunate'. It is not an isolated incident, and occurs in the aftermath of repeated challenges to state and social authority in the UK, including the ongoing 'hate marches and the Leeds riot. It is the logical culmination of a sense of victimhood and entitlement that believes it 'trumps' all legal, social and moral considerations and obligations. You cannot co-exist with this kind of mentality - you either destroy it or it destroys you. These things kick off everywhere, all of the time. Football, pubs etc. We wouldn't be discussing this now though without the firearms officer losing the plot. The entitlement you speak of isn't exclusive to Asians or Immigrants though, far from it. My original point was that the assault, the filming of it and the subsequent lawyers behaviour aren't exclusive to race and for me have absolutely nothing to do with the whole sorry affair. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by oldie on Jul 28, 2024 12:00:44 GMT
Well we agree on some of that then, good. I've said before that I'd have been equally appalled by an Officer delivering retribution to a white man, that should go without saying. The assault on the Officers is of course appalling too, from the 'evidence' I've watched the 2 or 3 men will be looking at custodial sentences. No complaints from me. The difference in the tone of condemnation regarding the ethnicity of the men though seems to be the contentious issue. Both 'sides' have used it for political leverage and it's not going to be helpful for any of us. It's violent assault, followed by an unprofessional act by a firearms officer (at least it's how it appears). The whole event is one of the most unfortunate things that could have happened in these polarised times I'm glad we meet on some, if not all, points. However, I would remind you that this happening at this time is not 'unfortunate'. It is not an isolated incident, and occurs in the aftermath of repeated challenges to state and social authority in the UK, including the ongoing 'hate marches' and the Leeds riot. It is the logical culmination of a sense of victimhood and entitlement that believes it 'trumps' all legal, social and moral considerations and obligations. You cannot co-exist with this kind of mentality - you either destroy it or it destroys you. You mean like Mr Robinson and his supporters? |
|
|
|
Post by rideintothesun on Jul 28, 2024 12:34:18 GMT
I'm glad we meet on some, if not all, points. However, I would remind you that this happening at this time is not 'unfortunate'. It is not an isolated incident, and occurs in the aftermath of repeated challenges to state and social authority in the UK, including the ongoing 'hate marches' and the Leeds riot. It is the logical culmination of a sense of victimhood and entitlement that believes it 'trumps' all legal, social and moral considerations and obligations. You cannot co-exist with this kind of mentality - you either destroy it or it destroys you. You mean like Mr Robinson and his supporters? I really don't have a great degree of sympathy for the views of Mr Robinson and his supporters. However, I also wouldn't dismiss them as 'Far Right', and actually see them as a kind of logical conclusion of an insidious multicultural agenda that is repeatedly shoved down our throats at each and every opportunity. The 'diversity' agenda can more accurately described as 'anti-white', and is more rooted in power than any desire for genuine equality. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by oldie on Jul 28, 2024 12:41:31 GMT
You mean like Mr Robinson and his supporters? I really don't have a great degree of sympathy for the views of Mr Robinson and his supporters. However, I also wouldn't dismiss them as 'Far Right', and actually see them as a kind of logical conclusion of an insidious multicultural agenda that is repeatedly shoved down our throats at each and every opportunity. The 'diversity' agenda can more accurately described as 'anti-white', and is more rooted in power than any desire for genuine equality. I didn't ask for your views on Mr Robinson. I asked if Mr Robinson and his supporters fit the description you posted, being "It is the logical culmination of a sense of victimhood and entitlement that believes it 'trumps' all legal, social and moral considerations and obligations. You cannot co-exist with this kind of mentality - you either destroy it or it destroys you." Do they? |
|
Icegas
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 1,849 
|
Post by Icegas on Jul 28, 2024 12:47:42 GMT
I really don't have a great degree of sympathy for the views of Mr Robinson and his supporters. However, I also wouldn't dismiss them as 'Far Right', and actually see them as a kind of logical conclusion of an insidious multicultural agenda that is repeatedly shoved down our throats at each and every opportunity. The 'diversity' agenda can more accurately described as 'anti-white', and is more rooted in power than any desire for genuine equality. I didn't ask for your views on Mr Robinson. I asked if Mr Robinson and his supporters fit the description you posted, being "It is the logical culmination of a sense of victimhood and entitlement that believes it 'trumps' all legal, social and moral considerations and obligations. You cannot co-exist with this kind of mentality - you either destroy it or it destroys you." Do they? You know that you have literally described the Left of today there,right? I give you the pro Palestine marches,Black lives matter, The Trans movement..etc. All virtue signaling agendas where they consistently break the law,attack people with violence all around the world. |
|
|
|
Post by rideintothesun on Jul 28, 2024 12:52:35 GMT
I'm glad we meet on some, if not all, points. However, I would remind you that this happening at this time is not 'unfortunate'. It is not an isolated incident, and occurs in the aftermath of repeated challenges to state and social authority in the UK, including the ongoing 'hate marches and the Leeds riot. It is the logical culmination of a sense of victimhood and entitlement that believes it 'trumps' all legal, social and moral considerations and obligations. You cannot co-exist with this kind of mentality - you either destroy it or it destroys you. These things kick off everywhere, all of the time. Football, pubs etc. We wouldn't be discussing this now though without the firearms officer losing the plot. The entitlement you speak of isn't exclusive to Asians or Immigrants though, far from it. My original point was that the assault, the filming of it and the subsequent lawyers behaviour aren't exclusive to race and for me have absolutely nothing to do with the whole sorry affair. Well, the family also claimed that the mother was physically attacked by a police officer, which presumably would have been the 'go-to' incident had the firearms officer not (entirely understandably) reacted to being punched in the back of the head in a cowardly assault. I'd completely agree it isn't exclusive. For instance, when people dismiss a view as 'middle class', they are basically that this group has no right to heard or speak of its experience. However, minority groups have replaced the British working-class as the victimised group par excellence. This is reflected in the politics of the Labour Party, and also in the discussion and analysis of disadvantage and exclusion. If a white, working-class person wanted to tap into wider resentments, they would self-evidently have a harder time. In publicising this incident in the way they did, the lawyer, family, and protestors played into wider tropes of 'institutional racism', 'minority discrimination', and so on..... |
|
Icegas
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 1,849
|
Post by Icegas on Jul 28, 2024 12:58:12 GMT
I have, what makes you think I haven't? I've pointed out on here before that I had a dear Pakistan friend that was a Muslim called Faruk, that sadly got killed in an assination "car crash" while on holiday over there due his brother being a high up politician there at the time. Faruk was a great man,as are his Family.He embraced the UK culture and our laws.He was a Muslim, prayed daily etc, but he also drank and wasn't apart of an Islamic cult. When my father committed suicide in 2009 he helped me a lot. But he also spoke about the bad in the Islamic faith and feared for its future. I don't hate Muslims...I dislike radical Islam and wreckless mass immigration thats changed the dynamics of this country and the West forever by our corrupt politicians and the extreme left. Ive had wonderful experiences with people from all over the world,from all faiths and religions. Sorry to hear about your Father. I'm glad you've had some good experiences too then, we've got differences of opinion on some core issues but discussing reasonably is always a good thing Thanks. I always try to have reasonable debate here,and I enjoy the section because there are some strong personalities on all sides here.The problem is with all the problems in the world today things get heated at times. You always been fair here tho.👍 |
|
|
|
Post by pop up pirate on Jul 28, 2024 12:59:09 GMT
Sorry to hear about your Father. I'm glad you've had some good experiences too then, we've got differences of opinion on some core issues but discussing reasonably is always a good thing Thanks. I always try to have reasonable debate here,and I enjoy the section because there are some strong personalities on all sides here.The problem is with all the problems in the world today things get heated at times. You always been fair here tho.👍 Up the Gas |
|
|
|
Post by rideintothesun on Jul 28, 2024 13:07:48 GMT
I really don't have a great degree of sympathy for the views of Mr Robinson and his supporters. However, I also wouldn't dismiss them as 'Far Right', and actually see them as a kind of logical conclusion of an insidious multicultural agenda that is repeatedly shoved down our throats at each and every opportunity. The 'diversity' agenda can more accurately described as 'anti-white', and is more rooted in power than any desire for genuine equality. I didn't ask for your views on Mr Robinson. I asked if Mr Robinson and his supporters fit the description you posted, being "It is the logical culmination of a sense of victimhood and entitlement that believes it 'trumps' all legal, social and moral considerations and obligations. You cannot co-exist with this kind of mentality - you either destroy it or it destroys you." Do they? Let's begin by observing that victimhood' implies that discrimination is artificial - i.e., that it is perceived by the 'victim' but otherwise does not exist. Robinson and his supporters are drawn from the British working-class, and this group has historically experienced discrimination, prejudice and social exclusion, invariably through no fault of its own. On this basis, I would draw a clear distinction with the British Muslim community, and suggest that while it has experienced prejudice and discrimination, there is a clear gap between its perception and the actual reality, with a number of claimed instances of racial discrimination (such as the Manchester airport incident) being found to be inflated or outright fabrications. Also remember that before 9/11, anti-Muslim prejudice was at most a footnote in British public life, with anti-Black racism, for instance, being far more widespread and noticeable. Before 9/11, anti-Muslim sentiment was broadly comparable to anti-Semitism, which has since 1945 been relatively marginal, despite the best efforts of some (pro-Israel) to fabricate the illusion that it is widespread, most notably within the Labour Party. I should also clarify that I view Robinson and his supporters as far less of an immediate threat than radical Islamist extremists, despite the best efforts of the MSM to create public fear and resentment of the bogeyman 'far-Right'. I also hold this view of AfD and Marianne Le Pen-needless to say, this doesn't make me a 'fascist' or supporter of the 'Far Right'. Hope this helps. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by oldie on Jul 28, 2024 13:23:51 GMT
I didn't ask for your views on Mr Robinson. I asked if Mr Robinson and his supporters fit the description you posted, being "It is the logical culmination of a sense of victimhood and entitlement that believes it 'trumps' all legal, social and moral considerations and obligations. You cannot co-exist with this kind of mentality - you either destroy it or it destroys you." Do they? Let's begin by observing that victimhood' implies that the status is artificial - i.e., that it is perceived by the 'victim' but otherwise does not exist. Robinson and his supporters are drawn from the British working-class, and this group has historically experienced discrimination, prejudice and social exclusion, invariably through no fault of its own. On this basis, I would draw a clear distinction with the British Muslim community, and suggest that while it has experienced prejudice and discrimination, there is a clear gap between its perception and the actual reality, with a number of claimed instances of racial discrimination (such as the Manchester airport incident) being found to be inflated or outright fabrications. Also remember that before 9/11, anti-Muslim prejudice was at most a footnote in British public life, with anti-Black racism, for instance, being far more widespread and noticeable. Before 9/11, anti-Muslim sentiment was broadly comparable to anti-Semitism, which has since 1945 been relatively marginal, despite the best efforts of some (pro-Israel) to fabricate the illusion that it is widespread, most notably within the Labour Party. I should also clarify that I view Robinson and his supporters as far less of an immediate threat than radical Islamist extremists, despite the best efforts of MSM to create public fear and resentment of the bogeyman 'far-Right'. Hope this helps. Not at all. Rather than answer the question directly you present a straw man argument over who has suffered the most prejudice. You offered up this definition "It is the logical culmination of a sense of victimhood and entitlement that believes it 'trumps' all legal, social and moral considerations and obligations. You cannot co-exist with this kind of mentality - you either destroy it or it destroys you." So do you think that Robinson and his supporters fit that description? Let me offer some help. Robinson himself has been found guilty. He is ordered by our courts to pay compensation and to not repeat the lies he had published. He then, this weekend shows a film to his supporters within which is a repetition of the lies he was found guilty of. In your eyes, does that meet the threshold for contempt of the law? Or does his sense of victimhood, sense of entitlement, trump his legal obligations? |
|
|
|
Post by rideintothesun on Jul 28, 2024 13:45:23 GMT
Let's begin by observing that victimhood' implies that the status is artificial - i.e., that it is perceived by the 'victim' but otherwise does not exist. Robinson and his supporters are drawn from the British working-class, and this group has historically experienced discrimination, prejudice and social exclusion, invariably through no fault of its own. On this basis, I would draw a clear distinction with the British Muslim community, and suggest that while it has experienced prejudice and discrimination, there is a clear gap between its perception and the actual reality, with a number of claimed instances of racial discrimination (such as the Manchester airport incident) being found to be inflated or outright fabrications. Also remember that before 9/11, anti-Muslim prejudice was at most a footnote in British public life, with anti-Black racism, for instance, being far more widespread and noticeable. Before 9/11, anti-Muslim sentiment was broadly comparable to anti-Semitism, which has since 1945 been relatively marginal, despite the best efforts of some (pro-Israel) to fabricate the illusion that it is widespread, most notably within the Labour Party. I should also clarify that I view Robinson and his supporters as far less of an immediate threat than radical Islamist extremists, despite the best efforts of MSM to create public fear and resentment of the bogeyman 'far-Right'. Hope this helps. Not at all. Rather than answer the question directly you present a straw man argument over who has suffered the most prejudice. You offered up this definition "It is the logical culmination of a sense of victimhood and entitlement that believes it 'trumps' all legal, social and moral considerations and obligations. You cannot co-exist with this kind of mentality - you either destroy it or it destroys you." So do you think that Robinson and his supporters fit that description? Let me offer some help. Robinson himself has been found guilty. He is ordered by our courts to pay compensation and to not repeat the lies he had published. He then, this weekend shows a film to his supporters within which is a repetition of the lies he was found guilty of. In your eyes, does that meet the threshold for contempt of the law? Or does his sense of victimhood, sense of entitlement, trump his legal obligations? I actually clarify that the term 'victimhood' better applies to one than the other, and demonstrate why this is the case by showing that prejudice and discrimination against the British working-class has much deeper roots within British society. My impression was actually that the march was otherwise peaceful and that there were problems or issues on the day. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the 'hate marches' held every weekend, which have only resulted in so few arrests because the police have adopted a deliberately 'hands off' approach. Incidentally, most violence in confrontations between the Far-Right and Far-Left tend to be the responsibility of the latter. If Robinson has breached his legal obligation then he will accordingly be punished. MPs and political parties are frequently found to have broken the law - I would suggest that the threshold would only be broken if they repeatedly did this over a sustained period of time. Also worth recalling that individuals like the family's lawyer show contempt for the law by working within it, without technically breaking it. |
|
Icegas
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 1,849
|
Post by Icegas on Jul 28, 2024 14:48:51 GMT
Let's begin by observing that victimhood' implies that the status is artificial - i.e., that it is perceived by the 'victim' but otherwise does not exist. Robinson and his supporters are drawn from the British working-class, and this group has historically experienced discrimination, prejudice and social exclusion, invariably through no fault of its own. On this basis, I would draw a clear distinction with the British Muslim community, and suggest that while it has experienced prejudice and discrimination, there is a clear gap between its perception and the actual reality, with a number of claimed instances of racial discrimination (such as the Manchester airport incident) being found to be inflated or outright fabrications. Also remember that before 9/11, anti-Muslim prejudice was at most a footnote in British public life, with anti-Black racism, for instance, being far more widespread and noticeable. Before 9/11, anti-Muslim sentiment was broadly comparable to anti-Semitism, which has since 1945 been relatively marginal, despite the best efforts of some (pro-Israel) to fabricate the illusion that it is widespread, most notably within the Labour Party. I should also clarify that I view Robinson and his supporters as far less of an immediate threat than radical Islamist extremists, despite the best efforts of MSM to create public fear and resentment of the bogeyman 'far-Right'. Hope this helps. Not at all. Rather than answer the question directly you present a straw man argument over who has suffered the most prejudice. You offered up this definition "It is the logical culmination of a sense of victimhood and entitlement that believes it 'trumps' all legal, social and moral considerations and obligations. You cannot co-exist with this kind of mentality - you either destroy it or it destroys you." So do you think that Robinson and his supporters fit that description? Let me offer some help. Robinson himself has been found guilty. He is ordered by our courts to pay compensation and to not repeat the lies he had published. He then, this weekend shows a film to his supporters within which is a repetition of the lies he was found guilty of. In your eyes, does that meet the threshold for contempt of the law? Or does his sense of victimhood, sense of entitlement, trump his legal obligations? First off anything you say on this subject should be taken with a pinch of salt given that yesterday when I asked if you had watched this film, that you said no as it's beneath you..so how do you know anything? He has been arrested under schedule 7 of the terrorism act 2000, which is ridiculous as even you with your dislike of Robinson would never class him as a terrorist, would you? It’s an abuse of power and they aren’t worried about conviction because the process it’s self is the punishment and the restrictions put on him while the process proceeds. Schedule 7 is a shocking piece of legislation.There is no right to remain silent in interview; refusal to answer any question is a punishable itself offence.It gives the police unlimited power to access your electronic devices, like phones or laptops. If you refuse, you are automatically guilty. Tommy was arrested because of the mass patriot turnout in London, Brits who want to save their country from real terrorism and from migrants who wish to harm women and children. The system can't have the country united like that. Using the terrorism act is despicable and it's good the world is seeing how far the system will go to silence us. These actions from the state are going to create a civil war if they are not careful. |
|
|
|
Post by baldrick on Jul 28, 2024 16:14:29 GMT
Not at all. Rather than answer the question directly you present a straw man argument over who has suffered the most prejudice. You offered up this definition "It is the logical culmination of a sense of victimhood and entitlement that believes it 'trumps' all legal, social and moral considerations and obligations. You cannot co-exist with this kind of mentality - you either destroy it or it destroys you." So do you think that Robinson and his supporters fit that description? Let me offer some help. Robinson himself has been found guilty. He is ordered by our courts to pay compensation and to not repeat the lies he had published. He then, this weekend shows a film to his supporters within which is a repetition of the lies he was found guilty of. In your eyes, does that meet the threshold for contempt of the law? Or does his sense of victimhood, sense of entitlement, trump his legal obligations? First off anything you say on this subject should be taken with a pinch of salt given that yesterday when I asked if you had watched this film, that you said no as it's beneath you..so how do you know anything? He has been arrested under schedule 7 of the terrorism act 2000, which is ridiculous as even you with your dislike of Robinson would never class him as a terrorist, would you? It’s an abuse of power and they aren’t worried about conviction because the process it’s self is the punishment and the restrictions put on him while the process proceeds. Schedule 7 is a shocking piece of legislation.There is no right to remain silent in interview; refusal to answer any question is a punishable itself offence.It gives the police unlimited power to access your electronic devices, like phones or laptops. If you refuse, you are automatically guilty. Tommy was arrested because of the mass patriot turnout in London, Brits who want to save their country from real terrorism and from migrants who wish to harm women and children. The system can't have the country united like that. Using the terrorism act is despicable and it's good the world is seeing how far the system will go to silence us. These actions from the state are going to create a civil war if they are not careful. Who arrested him? Both the Met and Bedfordshire police are denying involvement. Also, Schedule 7 relates to ports and airports only. |
|
Icegas
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 1,849
|
Post by Icegas on Jul 28, 2024 18:00:00 GMT
First off anything you say on this subject should be taken with a pinch of salt given that yesterday when I asked if you had watched this film, that you said no as it's beneath you..so how do you know anything? He has been arrested under schedule 7 of the terrorism act 2000, which is ridiculous as even you with your dislike of Robinson would never class him as a terrorist, would you? It’s an abuse of power and they aren’t worried about conviction because the process it’s self is the punishment and the restrictions put on him while the process proceeds. Schedule 7 is a shocking piece of legislation.There is no right to remain silent in interview; refusal to answer any question is a punishable itself offence.It gives the police unlimited power to access your electronic devices, like phones or laptops. If you refuse, you are automatically guilty. Tommy was arrested because of the mass patriot turnout in London, Brits who want to save their country from real terrorism and from migrants who wish to harm women and children. The system can't have the country united like that. Using the terrorism act is despicable and it's good the world is seeing how far the system will go to silence us. These actions from the state are going to create a civil war if they are not careful. Who arrested him? Both the Met and Bedfordshire police are denying involvement. Also, Schedule 7 relates to ports and airports only. From what I can tell no one knows, or where he is. |
|
|
|
Post by pop up pirate on Jul 28, 2024 18:15:18 GMT
First off anything you say on this subject should be taken with a pinch of salt given that yesterday when I asked if you had watched this film, that you said no as it's beneath you..so how do you know anything? He has been arrested under schedule 7 of the terrorism act 2000, which is ridiculous as even you with your dislike of Robinson would never class him as a terrorist, would you? It’s an abuse of power and they aren’t worried about conviction because the process it’s self is the punishment and the restrictions put on him while the process proceeds. Schedule 7 is a shocking piece of legislation.There is no right to remain silent in interview; refusal to answer any question is a punishable itself offence.It gives the police unlimited power to access your electronic devices, like phones or laptops. If you refuse, you are automatically guilty. Tommy was arrested because of the mass patriot turnout in London, Brits who want to save their country from real terrorism and from migrants who wish to harm women and children. The system can't have the country united like that. Using the terrorism act is despicable and it's good the world is seeing how far the system will go to silence us. These actions from the state are going to create a civil war if they are not careful. Who arrested him? Both the Met and Bedfordshire police are denying involvement. Also, Schedule 7 relates to ports and airports only. My guess is they're preventing him from flying home, to Spain. He has High Court in the UK tomorrow already scheduled |
|
|
|
Post by baselswh on Jul 28, 2024 18:54:28 GMT
The family of the two thugs that attacked the Police have now got a new lawyer and have expressed 'concern' for the injured officers.
The new lawyer has I think dropped the "cyst on the brain" claim and says the thug is to be looked at again at a hospital.
They've realised they are in deep water and have began a bulls**t charm offensive,a damage limitation exercise.
Lock em up.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by oldie on Jul 28, 2024 20:17:02 GMT
Not at all. Rather than answer the question directly you present a straw man argument over who has suffered the most prejudice. You offered up this definition "It is the logical culmination of a sense of victimhood and entitlement that believes it 'trumps' all legal, social and moral considerations and obligations. You cannot co-exist with this kind of mentality - you either destroy it or it destroys you." So do you think that Robinson and his supporters fit that description? Let me offer some help. Robinson himself has been found guilty. He is ordered by our courts to pay compensation and to not repeat the lies he had published. He then, this weekend shows a film to his supporters within which is a repetition of the lies he was found guilty of. In your eyes, does that meet the threshold for contempt of the law? Or does his sense of victimhood, sense of entitlement, trump his legal obligations? I actually clarify that the term 'victimhood' better applies to one than the other, and demonstrate why this is the case by showing that prejudice and discrimination against the British working-class has much deeper roots within British society. My impression was actually that the march was otherwise peaceful and that there were problems or issues on the day. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the 'hate marches' held every weekend, which have only resulted in so few arrests because the police have adopted a deliberately 'hands off' approach. Incidentally, most violence in confrontations between the Far-Right and Far-Left tend to be the responsibility of the latter. If Robinson has breached his legal obligation then he will accordingly be punished. MPs and political parties are frequently found to have broken the law - I would suggest that the threshold would only be broken if they repeatedly did this over a sustained period of time. Also worth recalling that individuals like the family's lawyer show contempt for the law by working within it, without technically breaking it. So Robinson broke the law, flagrantly, on the weekend. Does that meet your definition? "It is the logical culmination of a sense of victimhood and entitlement that believes it 'trumps' all legal, social and moral considerations and obligations." Yes or no will suffice. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by oldie on Jul 28, 2024 20:18:17 GMT
Who arrested him? Both the Met and Bedfordshire police are denying involvement. Also, Schedule 7 relates to ports and airports only. My guess is they're preventing him from flying home, to Spain. He has High Court in the UK tomorrow already scheduled That is my presumption as well. |
|
Icegas
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 1,849
|
Post by Icegas on Jul 28, 2024 20:28:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by baldrick on Jul 28, 2024 20:46:55 GMT
Made in 2021 and ties in with their anti gay stance. Of course, Russia isn't competing at the Olympics this year. |
|
